The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-09-17
PREBENDARY ROWS METHOD OF
INTERPRETATION.


author, Rev. @. A. Row, Prebendary of
ST. Paul's, London, favors the conclu-
sion that destruction is the fate of the
deliberately impenitent." He adopts
this view in common with many writers
of the conditional Immortality school,
relying on the import of such phrases In
the Scriptures, as "death," "destruc-
ton" fire. etc., giving them literal
construction in harmony with his the
DRY. But reviewer in the Spectator,
of July Is, follows up the argument
very closely, and gives some excellent
reasons why the learned author should
not place emphatic reliance on these
words to teach his doctrine. The best
of these arguments is that which comes
from Prebendary Rows own statement
of the rules and principles which should
be held to govern Scripture interpreta-
ton. For example, in the ninth chap
ter of his work, Mr.. Row shows the
reader that of anything like the techni-
cal theology of subsequent periods the
New Testament is innocent; that
the words usually translated "spirit,"
"soul," and "body," mean quite differ
emit things in different places; that the
words translated life" and death"
and eternal" and everlasting, mean
different things in different places !;
and that, in short, you can only judge
from the context what the particular
meaning to be attached to word used
at different times in very different sig
niications should be.
Now, the reviewer in the Spectator
meets Mr.. Row just here and explains
in few pregnant sentences that the
great Importance of this proposition,
which he says the author establishes in
the amplest way, is not perhaps fully
appreciated by himself, and he gives an
example in proof. He claims that the
author shows clearly enough that both
death" and life" are used in various
passages of the New Testament in a
very metaphorical sense; that men are
spoken of as dead who are not really
dead at ali, as when we are told that
those who believe in Christ are brought
from death into life. Now, if those
who pass from death into life were not
really dead, it is obvious that those who
pass from life into death need not be
really dead either. And the reviewer
believes that just the same may be said
Of the words implying destruction. If
it does not follow that the word which
in general indicates the loss of life is to
mean real humiliation, it does not fol-
low that the word which in general in
dictates destruction shall mean real
extinction.
Prebendary Row is hardly consistent
in this respect, according to the judg-
ment of his astute reviewer. He in
sists, and justly, that we shall not al
ways give the same literal and consist
ent meaning to the words used in the
New Testament but when he comes
to the use of such words as ''fire'' and
obstruction, he is too anxious to in
sist on the literal and consistent use OF
the terms, as if such expressions Gas they
occur in the Originally might not be just
as variably construed in different con-
texts as the words expressing life and
death, and soul and spirit.
The Spectator reviewer, whose Ian
guage we freely appropriate above,
lays bare in this criticism the germinal
errors of adherents of the doctrine of
destruction. While in general they
can see the improperly of insisting on
the literal Interpretation of many pas
sages in the New Testament, and are
free to give them the meaning suggested
by their context, when they come to the
texts which apparently favor their own
theory, they feel perfectly at liberty to
press them into service, and to offer
them as proofs with only the literal
meaning attached to them Here is
where the inconsistency comes in. The
method is clearly unfair, and the Spec
tator has done excellent service in call
ing attention to the fact. Mr.. Row, as
he explains in response to his reviewer,
does not rely altogether on these New
Testament texts for his conclusions as
to destiny; but ia so far as he de-
ponds upon them, the method he adopts
is that which the reviewer so success
fully criticises. Mr.. Rows volume is
'matterful," and exceedingly valuable
in some of its chapters, although he in
clines to lame and impotent conclusion
in regard to destiny, and one which can
only be accepted as a less dreadful
alternative than that of endless pun
ishment. We may refer to this work
again, especially to present Mr.. Rows
views on future probation, for which
the writer in the Spectator thanks him,
and adds: "For our part, we heartily
accept his view, and are quite sure that
there is not word in the New Testa-
ment which declares that probation,
must necessarily end with life, and can
not extend beyond it."
AB0UT GOING TO HEAVEN.